The Testaments

⭐⭐⭐

Had to put it to the side. Will go back and pick it up at a later date.

What a brilliant way to come back with a second part to answer questions that were out there since 1985.

When not comparing to the original book, this is quite a wonderful book. Unfortunately it is hard to think of it outside of its legendary predecessor. Seeing the inner workings of Gilead from other perspectives was very interesting though. 

Usually, when an author goes back to create a new story in a world they last stepped foot in a quarter century ago, especially off the success of an acclaimed adaptation, it feels like a cheap money grab, or an admission that they have no original ideas left. But Atwood isn't like other authors. This feels like a necessary counterpoint rather than mere franchising. The Handmaid's Tale now feels like one of two halves rather than a standalone work.

Maybe 2.5 stars.

This was very underwhelming.

While I did not LOVE the Handmaid's Tale, I taught it to my grade 11 english class this year and it worked really well for starting discussions about a lot of topics, both conceptually and in terms of writing. The narration of THT is so introspective and slow while so much traumatic and intense stuff is happening around the narrator. The Testaments, on the other hand...did not do anything innovative or different. It reads like YA - and not the fun, dramatic, whimsical kind of YA that can be really worthwhile, but rather just formulaic and plot-driven. It's way less scary and oppressive feeling than the Handmaid's Tale, and the world-building makes way less sense. And despite being plot-driven, the plot doesn't even make sense? For example: It is never explained why it matters at all that Baby Nicole be the person the transfer the information? It would have been safer and easier if it had been any random person. In the final chapter there is some feeble attempt at explaining why anyone would entrust these tasks to 13 year olds, but it falls flat. Also we are just supposed to believe that as soon as this information was released in Canada, Gilead self-destructs? In the acknowledgements Atwood says "Totalitarianisms may crumble from within...or they may be attached from without; or both" but it is not explained how this would have led to falling from within? Maybe Canada would be more likely to attach when Gilead was weakened but if Gilead is so good at keeping Canadian media from its citizens why would they ever hear about this information release at all? I could go on.... I will say, the parts narrated by Aunt Lydia were the most compelling in terms of writing. Although the Aunt Lydia character here is quite different than in THT. If she was supposed to be read as an unreliable narrator that should have been a little more...highlighted? For instance showing her actions from the other narrators' perspectives. the Agnes narration was fine. The Daisy narration was terrible and read as very fake. Her manner of speaking/thinking did not seem tied to one particular age. Sometimes she spoke and acted like a seven year old, other times a twelve year old, other times a badly-written “rebellious” teenager.

Idk, the whole thing just felt kind of bland and obvious compared with the Handmaid's Tale.

Interesting book. The original still creeps me out, as does this. But it was interesting to see how Margaret Atwood wrapped this up. I watched the first two seasons of the show on HULU, and wondered how true they were to the book. It looks pretty accurate to me.

Spoiler beyond here.
Wonder if she was prompted to go back and “make things right” because people were unsettled, or if she had already been thinking about it.

Disappointing.
Well, that can be the case with any sequel. Although the book tries to answer some questions about Gilead and its laws, the story itself doesn't have a premise or a build up. It's sad for it to follow after the amazing Handmaid's Tale. Received this as a Christmas present in secret santa pre-covid. Only got around to reading it now.

The sequel to the outstanding Handmaid's Tale, this took a leap into the future of the story, leaving behind most of the characters of the original. All of the world building was done in the original novel so there was little to add here but this held its own as a stand-alone thriller set against the background of the original.

Fazia tempo que um livro não me prendia tanto quanto este. Tão bom quanto o conto de aia, super recomendado

bit of a belter

recenzie pe larg: https://bloguldesefe.ro/2021/09/11/cand-oprimarea-otraveste-sufletele-speranta-se-ascunde-in-testamentele-lui-margaret-atwood/

As I'm not a literary critic any book review I write comes down to, simply, “Did I enjoy it? Was it worth reading?”. With The Testaments the answer to that is a resounding “yes”. The whole novel felt like an indulgent treat, particularly crawling around inside the brain of the duplicitous Aunt Lydia. To hear all those voices tell their stories (and their secrets) was a delight. After the uncertainty of The Handmaid's Tale, The Testaments brought catharsis.


I like the way Atwood writes - the poetry of her prose. I'd read, and most likely enjoy, anything she wrote. The Testaments is literarily quite different from her The Handmaid's Tale, seeming to draw more on the style of the TV show. This is amplified by the multiple POVs flipping us to-and-fro, keeping us on our toes. I found it less bleak, dark or foreboding than its predecessor. But, perhaps now, we need hopes more than warnings.

Others question whether this novel was “necessary” - is any book? Or maybe only stand alone originals are allowed? No sequels or prequels here please!
So Atwood hints she wrote it as a response to fans requests. Does it matter? She had been jotting sequel ideas since the 90s - you don't invent a situation like Gilead and then just stop thinking about it.
Atwood says she was driven to finally write the sequel when, “Instead of going away from Gilead, we turned around and started coming back towards Gilead”.
Where The Handmaid's Tale was a warning of what may come, The Testaments serves as both reprimand and redemption.

Compared to the first book, The Testaments was definitely more linear and easier to understand. But, I think this is one reason why the book is somewhat average to me. While I struggled to understand The Handmaid's Tale, the mysticism of the book is what made it so interesting, because I wanted to gain more context of that universe. In my opinion, The Testaments shone the brightest when the focus was on Aunt Lydia and Aunt Victoria/Agnes. I wanted to read this series, because the idea of a society ruled by extremist Christians was interesting to me. Daisy's POV was very boring and had a Hunger Games feeling I wasn't looking for. Her perspective felt very juvenile and Daisy as a character was just annoyingly dumb. Overall, the book was enjoyable, but bland.

I love how this was structured; a great read overall but I'm generally a sucker for Our National Treasure's works anyway. I am smitten with the idea that evil never wins permanently and glad to see it sort of played out.

A relatively uncomplicated story and a fast read compared to many of Margaret Atwood's other novels, including The Handmaid's Tale. The book is three first person narratives: Aunt Lydia from The Handmaid's Tale, Agnes, a young woman who was raised in Gilead, and Daisy, a teenaged girl raised in Canada who is learning about Gilead from the outside. Of the three, Aunt Lydia's narrative is central. We learn some things about her backstory that don't make her exactly sympathetic, but they do make her seem more human. She is also present in the other two narratives even when she is not physically present in the story–evoked as a bogeyman and revered as a founding figure in Gilead.
The more I think about it, the more I think this novel is about Aunt Lydia. I would say more, but I am suppressing all kinds of spoilers.

If you're at all interested in what happens to Gilead in the time after The Handmaid's Tale, I recommend this. It's a page turner that doesn't require a huge amount of energy to read, but it is satisfying to think about afterward.

Of course read both books, and read them in order.

This book wrapped up so many loose ends from a Handsmaid's Tale that it felt like fan-fic.

This must be the biggest drop in quality between a book and its sequel.

This is the sequel to the Handmaids Tale and is 5 stars in my books. PRAISED BE!! indeed

The book is written in 1st person narrative from the view point of 3 different characters.

Infamous Aunt lydia who, before Gilead was a family court judge. She ingratiates herself to the new goverment to become a founding member of the Aunts. Using her position she becomes in effect a double agent helping the underground and mayday organization.

Agnes. June's (aka Offred) daughter that was taken from her when she became a handmaid and raised by a foster family. The story chronicles her journey of self discovery, expirences and eventual joining of the Aunts to escape an arranged marriage. She learns the truth of her true parentage

Baby Nicole who was rescued from Gilead and sent to canada by her mother June (aka offred) and raised by foster parents under a false identity. She has become a symbol and rallying call for Gilead as a symbol of injustice and the rest of the world as a symbol of opression, tyranny and all that is wrong with Gilead. Nicole herself was raised with no knowledge of her true identity till her foster parents are killed in a car bomb and she becomes Gileads only hope.

These 3 stories intersect in a poweful way to bring the story to a incredible conclusion 35 yrs in the making.

An amazing and incredible read. 5 stars

Quero ler esse livro desde que foi lançado e ao msm tempo tinha receio de me decepcionar. Adorei. O conto da aia ainda ganha, mas achei uma super reviravolta e só o agradecimento da Margaret Atwood falando de totalitarismo no final já vale o dia...

I appreciate the look into the other lives of Gilead that this book provides. I love that some of the characters from the first book are redeemed in these texts.

I do not think that this book has the staying power or impact that The Handmaid's Tale did, but I appreciate it as a continuation of that narrative.

Margaret Atwood makes a much-anticipated return to the world she created in A Handmaid's Tale with this. Not so much a sequel in any direct sense, but a larger examination into the dystopia she created, the story follows the lives of an Aunt, a schoolgirl, and an outsider and we learn more about the society of Gilead that gets created.

The Aunt Lydia storyline was amazingly well-done, and provided a lot of insight into what a system like Gilead's would do even to those in privileged positions. She doesn't quite become a sympathetic character, but serves as an interesting reminder that the bastards will grind you down if you let them.
Agnes' story was really interesting as well. Seeing the perspective of someone raised in Gilead, and who accepts the basic tenets of that society without question, is horrifying in ways that even the original novel failed to achieve.

The only part of the book that I didn't particularly care for was the epilogue - it felt tacked on, and lacked a lot of the understatement and subtlety that Atwood featured in her storytelling to that point.

I enjoyed this. I'm usually not one for reboots or sequels to things that had their time a decade ago. For example, I never made it through the “new” Gilmore Girl episodes, despite loving the series when it was on. This still feels timely.
I had quite a few people tell me NOT to read this until I was caught up on the tv show, so I waited. I'm glad I did.

Didn't we get the point with the first book, The Handmaid's Tale? Did the sequel add anything? I must admit that I enjoyed Aunt Lydia's perfidy, but was she not in large measure responsible for Gilead's oppression of women in the first place? Her heroism comes a bit late, then. Anyway, I had no intention of reading this until my book club decided to take it on, so . . . I read it. I didn't hate it, but I wish I'd spent my time more profitably.